#13 - Lindsey: There are, of course, many poets with

[lounalola]

I was between E and B for this one and I went with B. I decided against E because I didn't think that the premise offered direct support for the conclusion. Can someone help me see this in a different way?

[Adam Tyson]

"Direct support" just means that there are no other conclusions between that premise and the main conclusion, lounalola . The use of the word "direct" is meant to distinguish this from indirect support, which is when a premise supports an intermediate conclusion, which then supports the main conclusion. Here's an example of a simple argument:

My son has a flat tire, so he's going to be late getting home for dinner. Therefore, he's going to be very hungry when he gets home.

The first statement, that he has a flat tire, is a premise. By itself, it does nothing to support the main conclusion, which is that he will be hungry when he gets home. A flat tire does not appear to have anything to do with being hungry. But it does indirectly support the main conclusion by directly supporting the intermediate conclusion, which is that he will be late getting home for dinner. And that intermediate conclusion directly supports the main conclusion that he will be very hungry when he gets home.

In this case, the claim that writing poetry can be depressing directly supports the conclusion that many poets are made melancholy by writing poetry. There is no intermediate conclusion between those two statements.

You might be thinking that direct support means proof, but that's not what it means. Could that be the source of your confusion?